Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Using Legal Writing Skills on Law School Exams

Exam season will soon be upon us, so now is a perfect time
to talk about how to use legal writing skills on law school exams. Your legal
writing skills can help you organize your thoughts and write thorough exam
answers.

Follow IRAC, CREAC, or Similar Structure

Many professors grade exams by looking to see how many
issues you address or “key words” you use—known as issue spotting. Professors
can find that information much more easily in exam answers that are organized
using IRAC, CREAC, or a similar structure.

Take, for example, a contracts question. Your answer could
start:

The question is
whether the Plaintiff can prove the existence of a valid contract. (The I in
IRAC)

or

Under these facts,
Plaintiff likely can prove the existence of a valid contract. (The C in CREAC)

Then, you’ll move on to give the elements of a contract (the
R).

To prove a contract,
the Plaintiff must show that there was (1) an offer; (2) an acceptance; (3)
consideration; and (4) a meeting of the minds.

Unless you have a professor who expects you to reference
specific cases, you likely won’t have a rule explanation section (where you
would normally outline explanatory cases either in long-hand or parenthetical
form). Instead, you’ll move right into your analysis (the A).

Here, the Plaintiff
can prove the Defendant made an offer because, on October 24, 2014, the
Defendant sent the Plaintiff an email offering to sell the Plaintiff 500
widgets at a cost of $50 per widget. Further, the Plaintiff can prove he
accepted the Defendant’s offer because the following day, on October 25, 2014,
the Plaintiff replied to the Defendant’s email accepting the offer of 500
widgets at a cost of $50 per widget.

******

You’ll continue to talk about the remaining elements of
consideration and meeting of the minds and finish your analysis, taking the
opportunity to talk about as many sub-issues as you can spot (i.e. contract
sufficiently definite, not governed by statute of frauds etc.)

Then, you’ll conclude by summarizing:

Therefore, the
Plaintiff likely can show the existence of a valid and enforceable contract
(the C).

Address Counterarguments to Gain Additional Points

Addressing counterarguments is an important in a law school
exam as it is in a memo or brief and should help you get additional points.

In the example above, the hypothetical facts might suggest
that the Defendant will argue he had withdrawn the offer before the Plaintiff
accepted it. Thus, your analysis should address that counterargument:

Here, the Plaintiff
can prove the Defendant made an offer because, on October 24, 2014, the
Defendant sent the Plaintiff an email offering to sell the Plaintiff 500
widgets at a cost of $50 per widget. Further, the Plaintiff can prove he
accepted the Defendant’s offer because the following day, on October 25, 2014,
the Plaintiff replied to the Defendant’s email accepting the offer of 500
widgets at a cost of $50 per widget.

In its offer email,
the Defendant did not specify a time by which the Plaintiff had to respond to
the offer, meaning that the Plaintiff could accept the offer at any time until
the Defendant withdrew it and notified the Plaintiff that the offer was withdrawn.
While the Defendant may have subjectively intended to withdraw the offer on the
afternoon of October 24, 2014 after he sold the 500 widgets to a third-party,
the Defendant failed to communicate that withdrawal to the Plaintiff. Thus, when
the Plaintiff replied to the Defendant’s email on October 25, 2014, the
Plaintiff accepted the offer.

******

Address Related Arguments to Gain Additional Points

Further, as you would in a memo or brief, you should address
all related issues that might arise. In our contract hypothetical, the facts
might suggest that even if the parties did not reach an enforceable contract,
the Plaintiff should be able to recover under an alternative theory, such as
promissory estoppel.

If so, after you complete the full IRAC, CREAC etc. for your
main contract issue, you'll want to follow the same structure to address each related issue:

Even if the Plaintiff
cannot prove the existence of a valid contract, he may be able to recover under
the theory of promissory estoppel (the I or C).

To recover under the theory
of promissory estoppel, the Plaintiff must prove: (1) the Defendant made a
clear and unambiguous promise; (2) the Plaintiff reasonably relied on the
promise, and the Plaintiff’s reliance was foreseeable; (3) the Plaintiff
changed his position to his detriment in reliance on the promise; (4) injustice
would result if the Plaintiff were not permitted to recover (the R).

The first element is
met because the Defendant made a clear and unambiguous promise to sell 500
widgets to the Plaintiff for $50 each. The second element also is met because
after the Plaintiff notified the Defendant by email on October 25, 2014 that the
Plaintiff wanted to purchase the widgets, the Plaintiff entered into a contract
to sell the widgets to a third-party, Smith. The Plaintiff’s reliance on the
Defendant’s promise to sell the Plaintiff the widgets was reasonable and
foreseeable because… (the A).

*******

The Plaintiff,
therefore, may be able to recover under promissory estoppel if he cannot prove
the existence of an enforceable contract. (the C).

Use your legal writing skills to your advantage in your law
schools exams to ensure you receive credit for every issue you spot and
discuss.

About Me

I'm a lawyer and legal writing professor who loves learning new things!
I live in Atlanta with my two dachshunds, Elsie and Magnus. In my spare time, I enjoy running and have participated in numerous 5Ks, 10Ks, and half-marathons. I also love to travel and guest blog from time to time for www.flirtingwiththeglobe.com.
I certainly do not claim to be perfect and am sure a discerning eye will catch errors in my posts. If you find such an error, please do not hesitate to email me at megan.e.boyd@gmail.com!